On Thu, 1 May 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote:
quoted text
> 
> linux-next is _supposed_ to be solely the stuff that is ready to be sent to
> you upon window-open.

Yes, the "stuff" may be supposed to be stable. But the trees feeding it 
certainly are not. People are rebasing them etc, and it doesn't matter 
because I think linux-next starts largely from scratch next time around.

quoted text
> So, I think a 'next' branch from you would open cans o worms:
> 
> - one more tree to test, and judging from linux-next and -mm it's tough to get
> developers to test more than just upstream
> 
> - is the value of holy penguin pee great enough to overcome this
> another-tree-to-test obstacle?
> 
> - opens all the debates about running parallel branches, such as, would it be
> better to /branch/ for 2.6.X-rc, and then keep going full steam on the trunk?

I do agree. And maybe I should have made it clear that I think it's worth 
it to me only if it then means that the merge window can shrink.

If I'd have both a 'next' branch _and_ a full 2-week merge window, there's 
no upside.

Btw, it wouldn't be another tree to test, since it would presumaby be what 
'linux-next' starts out from - so it would purely be something that 
doesn't have the constant re-merging of the more wild-and-crazy 
'linux-next' tree.

			Linus
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/